Scribd
Upload
125 views2 pages

Nestle Philippines Contempt Case Summary

The Supreme Court accepted the apologies of the respondent union and their counsel for conducting unauthorized pickets outside the Supreme Court building. While the Court chose not to impose sanctions for contempt in this case, it warned that future attempts to pressure the Court or interfere with the administration of justice would not be tolerated and could result in contempt charges. The Court acknowledged the union members may not have fully understood the legal issues and relied on their counsel to properly advise them. It reminded lawyers to educate their clients on proper respect and procedures regarding the courts.

Uploaded by

Justin Luis Jalandoni
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
125 views2 pages

Nestle Philippines Contempt Case Summary

The Supreme Court accepted the apologies of the respondent union and their counsel for conducting unauthorized pickets outside the Supreme Court building. While the Court chose not to impose sanctions for contempt in this case, it warned that future attempts to pressure the Court or interfere with the administration of justice would not be tolerated and could result in contempt charges. The Court acknowledged the union members may not have fully understood the legal issues and relied on their counsel to properly advise them. It reminded lawyers to educate their clients on proper respect and procedures regarding the courts.

Uploaded by

Justin Luis Jalandoni
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

G.R. No.

75209 September 30, 1987

NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner,


vs.
HON. AUGUSTO S. SANCHEZ, MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT and
THE UNION OF FILIPRO EMPLOYEES, respondents.

Facts:

The Union of Filipro Employees and Kimberly Independent Union for Solidarity,
Activism and Nationalism-Olalia had been conducting pickets which intensified
during the period of July 8-10, 1987 outside Padre Faura gate of the SC building.
Since June 17, 1981

On July 10, the Court en banc issued a resolution giving the said unions the
opportunity to withdraw graciously and requiring the union leaders and their
counsels and other individuals to appear before the Court on July 14 and then and
there to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court. Atty. Jose C.
Espinas, counsel of the Union of Filipro Employees, was further required to show
cause why he should not be administratively dealt with.

Atty. Espinas, for himself and in behalf of the union leaders concemed, apologized
to the Court with an assurance that such acts will not be repeated. He prayed for
the Court's leniency considering that the picket was actually spearheaded by the
leaders of the PAMANTIK, an unregistered loosed alliance of about 75 unions in the
southern Tagalog area and not by either the UFE or KILU.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent union was in contempt?

Held:

We accept the apologies offered by the respondents and at this time, forego the
imposition of the sanction warranted by the contemptuous acts described earlier.
The liberal stance taken by this Court in these cases as well as in the earlier case
of AHS/PHILIPPINES EMPLOYEES UNION vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, et al., G.R. No. 73721, March 30, 1987, should not, however, be
considered in any other light than an acknowledgment of the euphoria apparently
resulting from the rediscovery of a long-repressed freedom. The Court will not
hesitate in future similar situations to apply the full force of the law and punish for
contempt those who attempt to pressure the Court into acting one way or the other
in any case pending before it. Grievances, if any, must be ventilated through the
proper channels, i.e., through appropriate petitions, motions or other pleadings in
keeping with the respect due to the Courts as impartial administrators of justice
entitled to "proceed to the disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free
from outside interference obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass the
administration of justice." 3

We realize that the individuals herein cited who are non-lawyers are not
knowledgeable in her intricacies of substantive and adjective laws. They are not
aware that even as the rights of free speech and of assembly are protected by the
Constitution, any attempt to pressure or influence courts of justice through the
exercise of either right amounts to an abuse thereof, is no longer within the ambit
of constitutional protection, nor did they realize that any such efforts to influence
the course of justice constitutes contempt of court. 6 The duty and responsibility of
advising them, therefore, rest primarily and heavily upon the shoulders of their
counsel of record. Atty. Jose C. Espinas, when his attention was called by this Court,
did his best to demonstrate to the pickets the untenability of their acts and posture.
Let this incident therefore serve as a reminder to all members of the legal
profession that it is their duty as officers of the court to properly apprise their
clients on matters of decorum and proper attitude toward courts of justice, and to
labor leaders of the importance of a continuing educational program for their
members.

You might also like